Template:— representing_breakdown_element_realization (rep_bkdn_elem_real)
Capability:representing_breakdown_structure		 Date: 2008/02/29 18:15:49
Revision: 1.2
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssuesin situ

Issue raised against: representing_breakdown_element_realization

GENERAL issues

Open issue Issue: TJT-02 by Tim Turner, LSC (2008-08-16) minor_editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The note to say the entity relationship breakdown_element_realization has been deprecated is not sufficient. It does not tell the user/implementor a) why it was deprecated or b) which entity to use instead, or c) whether all possible references to the replacement entity have been resolved. The least that should be provided is a link to the issue against the original template or entity that provides this information because, when it involves further changes to the PLCS schema to resolve references (see TJT-03), we may wish to revisit why we are doing that in the first place. Changes like this introduce ambiguity into the model.

Open issue Issue: TJT-03 by Tim Turner, LSC (2008-08-16) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The template does no longer contains the PLCS relationship entity breakdown_element_realization. Instead the template uses view_definition_usage to provide the same functionality. However, there is an issue in that not all of the references to breakdown_element_realization are covered by view_definition_usage. In particular, it appears that it is not possible to assign a date_time to a view_definition_usage, through the date_or_date_time select type. This indicates that now we need to change the PLCS schema to accomodate the use of view_definition_usage in this template. In making changes of the kind here means that every usage/reference in which the former could be used needs to be checked to ensure that the replacement is capable of the same usage. Will we find more issues of this type, or HAS THE WORK BEEN DONE to ensure that this template is fit for use? I.E. I suspect that the same issue is waiting to be exposed for assignments such as property, requirements, documents, organizations, security, state_definition, effectivity, information_usage, condition, condition_evaluations, and approval. In adding view_definition_usage to the select types above, it is also likely that this will negate the need for them being added to subtypes of view_definition_usage.

Open issue Issue: TJT-04 by Tim Turner, LSC (2008-08-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

This template has no characterizations. However, the realization of a breakdown element may be dependent upon a range of factors that can 'characterize' the relationship (as indicated by the references to the previously used breakdown_element_realization). There is no evidence to suggest that these needs have diminished because the template now uses view_definition_usage to provide the same (or improved) relational functionality. These references take the form of assignments such as date_time, property, requirements, documents, organizations, security, state_definition, effectivity, information_usage, condition, condition_evaluations, and approval.

Open issue Issue: FRELL-01 by Fredrik Lied Larsen, DNV (2010-11-26) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

This template should be deprecated. The template representing_view_definition_usage should replace this template.

Open issue Issue: PBM-01 by Peter Bergström (2009-02-05) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Figure 1 shows a subtyping that goes in the wrong direction. Should go from View_definition_relationship to View_definition_usage.

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: TJT-01 by Tim Turner, LSC (2008-02-12) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template does not have to contain the PLCS entity breakdown_element_realization, but given the name of the template it *highly* suggests that it is a component. This is very confusing because the plcs entity cannot be used in the same manner (as flexibly) as this template. I suggest that a note be added to the description of this template informing users and-or implementors that this is not using the breakdown_element_realization entity. I am now struggling for a name for one that does use it! If this has been done because of an issue with the plcs entity, then that should be made clear (somewhere) with a reference to the issue why it is defficient.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-29)
Note has been added already.